If you start out talkin' and escalate to fightin', and one person draws a gun but the other refrains... what does the fallout look like? Assume the fist-fighter bests his trigger-happy opponent. Am I correct in assuming that the subdued gunfighter suffers physical conflict fallout, and not gunfight fallout (I can't remember the die types off the top of my head)?

Is this the same across all arenas? If someone escalates to gunfightin' straight from talkin', can a character choose not to participate in the escalation and continue trying to persuade the opponent? My instinct is to go with what the narrative suggests (if a character doesn't get shot up, he doesn't take gunfightin'-sized fallout dice), but fallout gets kinda tricky here.

What happens when an opponent doesn't have enough dice to meet a Raise? Say I'm down to one die, a 4. My opponent pushes forward two dice showing a ridiculous total -- 19. What do I do? Do I just flat-out lose the conflict with no fallout? Since I can't take the blow, that would be the case, right?

What if it were a gunfight where the stakes were "Will the Sorcerer kill the Steward?". If I lose that conflict without taking any blows (i.e. I just run out of dice), my character wouldn't be harmed at all, right? He'd just fail to save the Steward.

Similarly, what if it were a gunfight where the participant's lives were the stake? If I lost the conflict, I'd just be dead right?

What if the stakes were my opponent declared the stakes to be "I want to injure that son of a gun, but not kill him"? I assume if I lost the gunfight without Taking any Blows I'd just be injured -- bleeding from the arm or leg or something. Is this right?

You lose the conflict with no fallout, yes. So: right, right, right, and right.

I don't really recommend stakes like "what's at stake is, I injure but don't kill him." Better to go for the reason why: "what's at stake is, I stop him from burning down the meetinghouse" or whatever. That way you can leave the injuries all to fallout, which will be a little more comfortable in play.

Similarly, what if it were a gunfight where the participant's lives were the stake? If I lost the conflict, I'd just be dead right?

Yes. Giving when someone makes a Raise you can't match means you don't take Fallout from that Raise, but it still carries weight in the fiction towards resolving the conflict. If you're having a conflict because someone's trying to convince you of a point, and you Give, their last Raise doesn't give you d4 Fallout, but they've still won the argument. If you're having a conflict because someone's trying to kill you, and you Give, their last Raise doesn't give you Fallout, but they've still managed to put you down for good, in the same way*.

*: Although, if you get medical attention from someone, we can go into a new conflict to see if they can save you, probably with 4 dice of appropriate Fallout (e.g. 4d10 if you were shot) plus Demonic Influence as the opposition.

I was thinking that fallout happened as a result of a whole conflict. This makes SO MUCH more sense. I don't know how I got that so backwards.

Wow, I thought this too... The way it is written, that's how it seemed like it was supposed to be done. It was always one thing I liked and disliked about Dogs. Was that you could win the conflict and die after it was over (liked), but you didn't know how bad the fallout was until the fight was over (disliked).

Yup. And I love the fact that you may or may not have just taken a mortal wound, but you don't know how bad it is yet. Taking a blow colors the fiction so nicely that way. You're shot. Bad. Bleeding. But you get to say "I'm alright brothers! Push on." And then, the conflict ends and we get to see if you fall down dead.